Psychology group tells members it's okay to comment on President’s mental health

Members of the American Psychoanalytic Association have been cleared to comment about their thoughts on the President's and other officials' mental state. (Pool/Getty Images)

A national psychology organization has told its members that commenting on President Trump isn't unethical.

The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) earlier this month emailed more than 3,500 members that it "does not consider political commentary by its individual members an ethical matter."

Advertisement

The New York-based organization, which represents those focusing on psychoanalysis, is among the first major psychology groups to break from the "Goldwater rule."

The association's "ethical code concerns clinical practice, not public commentary," the email continued.

A statement from APsaA on Tuesday indicated it wasn't telling members to go against the "Goldwater rule," which is an American Psychiatric Association rule, whose members still have to abide by it.

"Rather, it articulated a distinct ethics position that represents the viewpoint of psychoanalysts," the APsaA said. "The field of psychoanalysis addresses the full spectrum of human behavior, and we feel that our concepts and understanding are applicable and valuable to understanding a wide range of human behaviors and cultural phenomenon."

We are the largest psychiatric organization in the world with more than 37,000 members. The Goldwater Rules applies to our members.

Psychiatrists and psychologist have felt the code is like a "gag rule" that blocks them from analyzing a politician's mental well-being based on statements and actions, according to health publication STAT.

"We don't want to prohibit our members from using their knowledge responsibly," Prudence Gourguechon, a Chicago-based psychiatrist, told STAT.

Speaking on a politician's mental fitness has become more important "since Trump's behavior is so different from anything we've seen before" from a leader, she told the magazine.

The "Goldwater rule" stems from the 1964 presidential election. "Fact" magazine at the time polled more than 12,000 psychiatrists on whether Republican nominee Barry Goldwater was well enough to be President.

And on Tuesday, after news of the APsaA email emerged, the American Psychiatric Association again said its "position has not changed."

Advertisement

"The Goldwater Rule applies to the 37,000 physician members of the American Psychiatric Association, not other groups, non-members, or non-physicians," Rebecca Weintraub Brendel, a member of the organization and Harvard Medical School professor, said in a statement. " The rule represents sound psychiatric ethics, preserves the integrity of the profession, and respects the patients that our members serve. "

But pressure has been mounting for psychology professionals to weigh in on the President's mental state.

A book titled "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President" will be published in early October.

"When the book comes out, there will be renewed furor about the Goldwater rule, since it is precisely about what is wrong with him," Lance Dodes, a retired Harvard Medical School professor and one of the book's experts, told STAT.

Leonard Glass, a psychiatrist with Harvard Medical School, said barring professional opinions to the public deprives it "of our professional judgment and prevents us from communicating our understanding."

"In the case of Donald Trump, there is an extraordinary abundance of speech and behavior on which one could form a judgment," Glass told STAT. "It's not definitive, it's an informed hypothesis, and one we should be able to offer rather than the stunning silence demanded by the Goldwater rule."